This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Per Heldal
heldal at eml.cc
Wed Dec 7 12:17:20 CET 2005
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:32:20 +0000, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com said: [snip] > Of course, this means that RIRs and ISPs have to cooperate in > allocating IPv6 addresses using a rough kind of geographical > plan. I suggest that this plan be anchored to the major cities > where most interconnecting is done. This is also roughly aligned > with the topology of the network if you can manage to visualize > an entire city (Paris, London, Hannover, Krivoy Rog) as a single > node in a network. It's that level of abstraction that leads to > making sense of this kind of aggregation. ... and free transit into each geographical region would be mandatory ??? Aggregation across multiple administrative domains isn't just a minor technical change. It would eliminate the transit-provider business model. Disruptive technologies are facts of life and nobody has a god-given right to existence, but don't expect long-haul carriers to give up their business without a fight. //per -- Per Heldal heldal at eml.cc
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]